Paper detail

Mixing Board Versus Mouse Interaction In Value Adjustment Tasks

We present a controlled, quantitative study with 12 participants comparing interaction with a haptically enhanced mixing board against interaction with a mouse in an abstract task that is motivated by several practical parameter space exploration settings. The study participants received 24 sets of one to eight integer values between 0 and 127, which they had to match by making adjustments with physical or graphical sliders. Based on recorded slider motion path data, we developed an analysis algorithm that identifies and measures different types of activity intervals, including error time moving irrelevant sliders and end time in breaks after completing each trial item. Our results showed a significant increase in speed of the mixing board interaction accompanied by reduced perceived cognitive load when compared with the traditional mouse-based GUI interaction. The gains in speed are largely due to the improved times required for the hand to reach for the first slider (acquisition time) and also when moving between different ones, while the actual time spent manipulating relevant sliders is very similar for either input device. These results agree strongly with qualitative predictions from Fitts' Law that the larger targets afforded by the mixer handles contributed to its faster performance. For further investigation, we computed a measure of motion simultaneity based on velocity correlation, which allowed to identify types of items for which increased simultaneous adjustments occur. For continuous parameter space exploration our findings suggest that mixing boards are a good option to provide detailed multi-value control. The strengths of this input method particularly show in settings where screen space is precious and undisrupted visual focus is crucial.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.